In April 2004, four American contractors working in Iraq were assailed by the mob in Fallujah and after being killed; their bodies were mutilated and set on fire.

On June 6, 2004 New York Times published an article titled New Violence, Old Problem. By NEIL Macfarquhar.

With ruling such as "To terrorize the enemy or to gladden the heart of a Muslim warrior” it is hard to imagine when mutilation can not be justified.

The Islamic site (www.islamonline.net) published a question in its "Ask the Scholar" section where Sheik Faysal Mawlawi was asked: "how Islam views the issue of mutilating dead bodies of enemies." Sheik Mawlawi, is the deputy chairman of the European Council for Fatwa and Research. He began by declaring that mutilation is "not allowable" under Islam. But then he added:

"It is possible to mutilate the dead only in case of retaliation. . . . If he inflicts any physical damage on anyone, he should be retaliated against in the same manner. In case of war, Muslims are allowed to take vengeance for their mutilated dead mujahids (fighters) in the same way it was done to them." This, the he explained, is the teaching of the Koran (16:126), which recommends patience but authorizes revenge.

On June 19 2004 Paul Johnson an American Engineer was behead and the gory picture of his severed head was posted on the Internet.

On May 2004 Nicholas Berg an American citizen in Iraq was caught and beheaded. The gruesome act was shown in Arab television Al Jazeerah.

A couple of years before that, in February 2002 Daniel Pearls suffered the same end. His assassins, video taped their grim crime proudly and showed to the world the level of savagery to which they can stoop.

Mutilations, decapitations and other horrendous acts of barbarity have become the hallmark of Islamic terrorism. But where these Muslims fighters get their inspiration from?

To answer this question we have to look into the history of Islam and more importantly the examples set by Muhammad, the founder of Islam who repeatedly urged his cohorts to follow his examples and do as he did.

In this chapter we shall see a few examples set by Muhammad in the hope that they will make us understand better the Muslims and their Jihad.

After his success in Nakhlah, where for the first time after six failing attempts, his followers managed to plunder a small merchant caravan, Muhammad decided to raid a bigger caravan destined Mecca that was coming from Damascus. The population of Mecca was informed of the plot and they went out to protect their property. The Caravan managed to escape and reach Mecca safely, but the Quraish, pestered by continuous attacks at their caravans, decided to confront Muhammad’s marauding gang who had come for the kill anyway. In this battle, that took place in Badr and marks the begging of Muhammad’s rise to power, the Meccans lost 49 men and about the same number of them was taken as hostage. (Other traditions put these numbers to 70 killed and 70 captured) Volume 4, Book 52, Number 276)

How Muhammad dealt with the injured and the captives in this war and in other wars set the tone for the subsequent Islamic savagery that has lasted up to this day.

Among the people who were slain was Aba Hakam (Abu Jahl, as derogatorily he came to be called by Muslims). Aba Hakam was severely wounded but still alive when Abdullah, the servant, of Muhammad, ran up, put his foot on Aba Hakam’s neck, got hold of his beard and started insulting the fatally wounded man whom they people had named the father of wisdom. He cut off Aba Hakam’s head and carried it to his master. "The head of the enemy of God!" exclaimed Muhammad joyously; ---- "God! There is none other God but he!" - "Yea There is no other!" responded Abdullah, as he cast the severed head at the Prophet’s feet. "It is more acceptable to me;" cried Mohammad, "than the choicest camel in all Arabia.”

It’s only by knowing these stories about Muhammad that we can understand the fascinations that the terrorists have for cutting the heads of their victims and why when a Muslim mob commits murder they invoke the name of God and cry out “Allah is great”. It is because of the examples set by the Prophet himself.

According to some historians, Muhammad is said to have given orders for Aba Hakam’s body to be mutilated and disfigured. (Waqidi, p. 85)

Another man who fell in Badr and whose body was mutilated was Umaiya bin Khalaf. The reference to his mutilation can be found in the Book of Bukhari. [Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 193: ]

See also Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 286:

After three days the bodies of the slain were dragged and dumped in a well. Muhammad stood by the well and looked on, as the bodies were brought up and cast in. Abu Bakr stood by, and examining their features, called aloud their names. Unable to contain his joy Muhammad started calling them by name and bragged to the corpses about his victory.

The “promise” that Muhammad was talking about was a curse that the vindictive prophet had laid on these men when he was in Mecca when they had derided him by one of them dumping the intestine of a camel on his back. On that occasion Muhammad said:

The following story can cast more light on the revengeful and implacable character of Muhammad.

Among the captives was Abul Bokhtari. He had shown kindness to Muhammad and was especially instrumental in procuring his and his followers release from the quarters of Abu Talib, where they were living in a state of self-imposed house-arrest, when the Quraish had boycotted him and his family. Muhammad, mindful of this favor, proclaimed that he would not harm him. However, Abul Bokhtari had a companion whom Muhammad could not forgive. He pleaded for his friend’s life but Prophet would not budge. So he exclaimed: "The women of Mecca; shall never say that I abandoned my comrade through love of life. Do thy work upon us both." So they were both killed.

Here we see Muhammad not only murdering his prisoners of war but he also kills someone to whom he owed a favor because he could not let go of the pleasure of taking revenge from his enemy.

In order to understand the kind of sway that Muhammad had over his men it is it noteworthy to mention a couple of episodes in relation to the battle of Badr.

One is the zealotry of the two boys who murdered Aba Hakam. These two young men were from Medina. They had never seen Aba Hakam before. But as the story goes, they looked for him and when enquired about him from a Meccan he asked “What do you want from him?" one of them responded: "I have been informed that he abuses Allah's Apostle. By Him in Whose Hands my life is, if I should see him, then my body will not leave his body till either of us meet his fate." When they find Aba Hahakam, both of them attacked him and pierced his body with their swords. [Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 369:]

Muslims recount these stories with gloatingly. Each Muslim tries to beat others in blind obedience to Muhammad. Neither those lads who killed Aba Hakam, nor other Muslims, ever wonder what the guilt of Aba Hakam was. The fact that he disliked Islam and Muhammad hated him is enough proof to his guilt and those boys vied with each other to kill him. Muslims for 1400 years relish listening to the details of his gruesome murder.

The same mentality permeates the Muslims today and if for example Salman Rushdie, who in the eyes of the Muslims, is the equivalent of Abu Jahl is murdered, the majority of them will celebrate.

Another story about how Muhammad had brainwashed his followers is that of Abu Hudhaifa whose father’s corpse was dragged and tossed into a pit. Abu Hudhaifa was overtaken by emotions watching his own father dead and being thus unceremoniously dumped into a hole in the ground, piled with other corpses. Upon noticing his distress, Muhammad turned to him and enquired:-" Perhaps you are distressed for your father's fate?" "Not so, O Prophet of the Allah! I do not doubt the justice of my father's fate; but I knew well his wise and generous heart, and I had trusted that the Lord would lead him to the faith. But now that I see him slain, and my hope destroyed! ---- it is for that I grieve” [Waqidi, 106; 11irlt6m4 230; Tabari, 294]

It is difficult to know what moved Abu Hudhaifa to tears. Did he really grieve the death of his father out of filial love and humanity or was he distressed for him dying in disbelief? But that is not important. What is important is to see the degree of zealotry and sycophancy of the companions of Muhammad. They prided themselves in demonstrating bravado, being heartless, ruthless and brainless.

Today Muslims pride themselves for having the same qualities of zealotry and mindless devotion. They congratulate the families of the terrorists killed in action. The mothers of suicide bombers rejoice when the news of their children reaches them. Showing emotions of grief is considered lack of faith.

Among the captives was Nadhr ibn Harith, a poet who was more popular than Muhammad when he was preaching in Mecca. Muhammad was envious of him as his stories about the kings of Persia gathered more crowd, a sin that made cost him his life.

To justify that murder, Muhammad made his Allah reveal the following verse:

“Ye wished that the one unarmed should be yours, but Allah willed to justify the Truth according to His words and to cut off the roots of the Unbelievers” 8.7

 

Some of the companions of Muhammad, like Abu Bakr, objected to these senseless killings of the prisoners of war. They affirmed that it is more pragmatic to keep the captives alive and ask ransom for their release. However, Muhammad’s lust for vengeance had blinded his commonsense. As usual he made his Allah to confirm his actions and thus shut the mouths of his critiques.

“It is not fitting for a prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land. Ye look for the temporal goods of this world; but Allah looketh to the Hereafter: And Allah is Exalted in might, Wise. 8.67

Does this verse really make sense? Does really God wants his prophets to kill first as much as they can even from their POWs before keep the rest as prisoners? In this verse Muhammad’s Allah says; “Ye look for the temporal goods of this world; but Allah looketh to the Hereafter”. What Hereafter? What good does it make to kill the prisoners of war? Who benefits from these cold blooded murders? If really God wanted to kill people because he “looketh to the Hereafter” can’t he do it on his own? Can’t this Allah strike the disbelievers with a lightening? Can’t he kill them with a heart attack? If Allah liked the theatrics of these killing to impress his believers and cast fear in the hearts of disbelievers, wasn’t it better if sent a blazing fire from the sky or kill them with spontaneous combustion? Why God needed Muhammad to murder these defenseless prisoners of war?

In another verse Muhammad’s god justifies all his actions and approves both his vengeful murders of the prisoners of war and his hostage takings.

“Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost” Q. 47.4

Two days after the murder of Nathr, the poet, about half-way to Medina, Okba, another prisoner, was ordered out for execution. He ventured to expostulate, and demand why he should be treated more vigorously than the other captives. "Because of thy enmity to God and to his Prophet," replied Muhammad. "And my little girl!" cried Okba, in the bitterness of his soul, "who will take care of her? ". "Hell-fire!" exclaimed the self proclaimed Mercy of God in the Worlds; and on the instant his victim was hewn to the ground. "Wretch that he was!" continued Muhammad, "and persecutor! Unbeliever in God, in his Prophet, and in his Book! I give thanks unto the Lord that hath slain thee, and comforted mine eyes thereby." Waqidi, p. 108 and 34; Hishami, p. 232.

The following tells us about the demagogy of Muhammad.

Muhammad never took part in any battle personally. He used to stay behind and encourage his followers to fight. The following is a verse written in that occasion.

O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding Q.8.65

At one time he grabbed a bunch of dust and casting it in the direction of the enemy and cried aloud, “Confusion seize their faces!”

Later he made his Allah “reveal”:

In this verse we also find the response to our question as why would Allah encourage the Muslims to wage war for him and kill innocent people. It is to “test” them…

Test what? What is it that Allah wants to test Muslims for? How ruthless they are? How savage they are? How barbaric they are? What kind of test is this that requires the believers to wage war and kill people? What is Islam all about? Is it a club of gangsters? Why murdering people should be a requirement of being a Muslim in good standing?

In the battle of Badr the number of the non-Muslims was thrice that of Muslims. Despite this Muslims won. This victory has been hailed by Muslims a miracle and has led them to regard it as the proof of the truth of Islam.

About 950 of them went forward nonetheless, many of them reluctantly. On the night before the battle dissensions again sprang up in the camp of the Quraish on the futility of fighting against their kinsmen. Two chiefs of Mecca, Shaiba and Utba, strongly urged that the confrontation should be abandoned. Talks like that among the Quraish disheartened many of them who indeed did not want to raise sword against their sons and brothers who had fled their homes and had joined the marauding gang of Muhammad.

On the other hand the army of Islam, although much smaller in size was implacable and thirsted for blood. They were incited by Muhammad’s flaming verses and were roused to an indescribable level of brutality that only religious zealotry is capable of producing. They were ready to kill, even their own kin and die in the cause of Allah and for their prophet.

Although the Quraish were bigger in number, they decided not to engage in full combat and settle the disagreements, if possible with one to one combats.

Their chiefs, the two brothers, Shaibah and Utba who earlier had talked about the futility of this war that to them was nothing but fratricide went forward, Shaibah’s son was the third. At first Muhammad sent three young men from helpers (The Muslims of Medina were called helpers) The Meccans said that they have to enmity with the Medinans and do not wish to fight against them. They asked for Muhammad but the fearful prophet would not go. Instead he sent Hamzah, his uncle; Ali, his cousin and Ubaidah.

As much as the Meccans were reluctant to let the hostility explode into a full bloodbath, the Muslims were eager to kill the non-Muslims with fanatical determination. The Arabs used to fight but after subduing their enemy and establishing their dominance, in an act of chivalry they would let their opponents walk away and rarely the duels ended up in one party killing another one. With this demonstration of bravery and chivalry they often settled their problems and hostilities would end. This was how the Meccan leaders who originally did not want to fight must have thought. But the followers of Muhammad had been changed. Now they were sanguinary and eager to kill. So while their opponents were trying to subdue them, they were aiming to kill them. Thus, shortly after the three duels started, Ali and Hamza killed Walid and Shaibah while Utba seriously wounded his Muslim opponent, Ubaidah. At this moment, Hamzah and Ali treacherously launched against Utba and killed him.

The following are some of the fiery verses that Muhammad made his Allah pronounce during that battle:

He also made generous promised of afterlife to those who would fall and die.

His promises of paradise kindled the spirit of Omeir, a lad of sixteen years. Believing in those words this credulous stripling threw away a handful of dates which he was eating. And exclaimed; "Is it these that hold me back from Paradise? Verily I will taste no more of them, until I meet my Lord!" With such words, he drew his sword, and casting himself upon enemy's ranks, soon obtained the fate he coveted.

Maududi in the Introduction to Surah 8 ( Spoils Of War, Booty), a Surah that was written in the occasion of Badr explains:

"The movement" (Islam) still lacked certain things to lead it to victory:- First, it had not yet been fully proved that it had gathered round it a sufficient number of such followers who not only believed in its truth, but also had such an intense devotion to its principles that they were ready to expend all their energies and all that they possessed in the struggle for its success and establishment. So much so that they were ready to sacrifice their lives in the fight against the whole world itself even though they should be their own nearest relatives.”

“fight against the whole world, even though they should be their own nearest relatives.” is what Islam has achieved. Today there are over a billion Muslims who take pride in fighting against the world and do not hesitate to kill even their won nearest relatives.

I received a letter from an American mom whose son converted to Islam when he was a teenager. Some years later the 9/11 happened. Not only he, fully supported this senseless killing of his own countrymen, he planned to go to Afghanistan and like John Walker Lyndh fight against the American army. This lady was heartbroken when he one day told her that he would support the military take over of America by Islam and that he would not hesitate to kill her should the order come to kill the disbelievers.

Maududi adds: “further trials were required to show that Islam had succeeded in acquiring such a band of followers which considered nothing dearer than its ideal and was ready to sacrifice life for it.”

There were also physical or strategic factors that led to the weakening of the Quraish and their defeat. Mukhtarpuri says:

Therefore the reason Muslims won the battle of Badr was not because angles had come to their help. It was because the Meccans were not willing to fight them; the Muslims were more than eager to kill even treacherously; the Muslims had cut the supply of water to them, and because the rain had rendered the plain where they were standing soft while the Muslims who had come first and had occupied the higher grounds were had a much firmer ground to stand on. It was the combination of truculence, zealotry, iniquity, chicanery, treachery, subterfuge and sheer luck that made the army of Muhammad win at Badr, not the angels.

In the forum of this site, one person asked if Islam is not a religion but just a cult, why it has succeeded and survived while other cults have failed.

This “logic” is the biggest stumbling block for the Muslims to see the truth of Islam. I will discuss that shortly, but first let us analyze this logic and see how logical it is.

The claim that Islam must be true because it has endured the test of time is a favorite argument of Muslim apologists. This argument in Arabic is called “Taghrir” and in English it is known as argumentum ad antiquitatem.

Argumentum ad antiquitatem, is the fallacy of asserting that something is right or good simply because it's old, or because "that's the way it's always been."

The world has known many thesis that were upheld for thousands of years and yet they were proven to be wrong eventually.

One such theory was geocentricity. Up until Galileo the majority of mankind believed that the Earth is the center of the cosmos and this belief was as old as mankind could remember. The Sun the Moon and the entire firmament were believed to rotate around the Earth and few challenged this idea. Yet despite its antiquity, geocentricism proved to be false.

Another logical fallacy that Muslims cling to is the claim that since a great portion of humanity believes in Islam it must be true. The argument presented is “How can a billion people be wrong?”

This too is a logical fallacy and is called argumentum ad numerum. Argumentum ad numerum asserts that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct.

As the examples of geocentricity and flatness of the Earth prove, this argument is also a logical fallacy.

Just as something true does not become untrue if no one believes in it, something that is not true will not become true if more people believe in it. Truth cannot be attained through the consensus of the majority. Facts are independent from people’s beliefs. We can’t decide on truth by running an opinion poll. The Earth was never flat even if the whole world believed so.

Another variation of argumentum ad numerum is argumentum ad populum. Argumentum ad populum is claiming that some thing is true because it is appealing to a lot of people. You commit this fallacy when you try to win the legitimacy for an assertion by claiming it is liked and favored by a large group of people. This form of fallacy is often characterized by emotive language. For example:

"For over 1400 years billions of people have believed in Islam. Islam has had a great impact on their lives. Islam has given the world Algebra and many sciences. The streets of Baghdad were illumined when the Europe was engulfed in Dark Ages. Or are you trying to tell that a billion people are all mistaken fools?"

The truth of a belief must be established on its own merits without any consideration of its antiquity or its popularity.

There are two answers to this question:

'The broad mass of a nation will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.' These are the words of Adolf Hitler. They are living testament to the idea that the bigger the lie the more believable it becomes.

The logic behind this is that the average, normal and sane people generally do not dare to tell big lies. They contend themselves with small lies because they fear a bigger lie would not be believed. And since everyone has heard or has fabricated a few small lies they generally can recognize it when they hear one. But big lies are so outlandish that often take the listener aback. Most people are not equipped to process them adequately. The average person wonders "how could anyone dare to say such a big lie?". And since telling a lie of such a magnitude is almost impossible therefore it must be true. However, what the average and normal person does not understand is that the liar is not an average and normal person but a psychopath, and his way of thinking should not be measured by the same yardstick that the average mind is measured with.

What the big lie does is that it offsets the scale of our commonsense and better judgment. This is like loading a scale that is designed to weigh kilos with tons. It breaks and stops showing the correct weight, in fact it may even show zero. That is why a bigger lie often appears to be truer than the smaller lies.

Add to this, the absolute conviction of the psychopath lair and his readiness to apply extreme force in support of his claim. Appealing to force, in order to support a claim is yet another logical fallacy that is has been often and quite successfully used by dictators and especially by Muhammad. This fallacy is called Argumentum ad baculum. It happens when someone resorts to force (or the threat of force) to push others to accept a conclusion.

This argument is often brought up by Muslims who say that the reason Muhammad won against all his enemies is because God assisted him. They completely overlook the fact that Muhammad used to send spies to bring him news about his to-be-victims and would attack when they were unarmed and least expecting. That he did not won because God was with him but because he was a cunning, traitorous and ruthless man who was bent to win even through dishonesty, treason and attacking his victims by surprise. You do not need God to be on your side to kill unarmed villagers when they are out after their daily business while you ride among them with your horses fully geared for war and with your sword unshielded.

This argument can be summarized as "might is right."

The threat could be direct like this:

Or indirect like this:

This gives to the big lie a more dramatic sense of urgency. The impact is so big that one can't remain indifferent. If you are smart you may recognize it as sheer evil. But if you are gullible and foolhardy, as most people are, you may think that the liar must be endowed with a special divine wisdom and empowered by some higher force, for you have never seen this much audacity, this much conviction and this much brutal force.

Your scale of commonsense goes so off that you can't even recognize that everything this man says is absurd. That he talks baloney. You marvel at the absurdities that he pronounces and instead of using your logics to dismiss them you strive to find some esoteric and hidden meanings in them and somehow justify them.

Hitler attracted the support of many Germans with his big lies. He was a spellbinding speaker who had a great influence on his audiences. He raised his voice when he spoke and became louder and louder as he vented his anger at the perceived enemies of Germany. He aroused the Germans with patriotism. His belief that the bigger the lie, the more believable proved to be true. Millions of Germans loved him and were moved to tears by his speeches.

Muhammad was the master of Hitler. This is not an ability that you and I can learn. It comes natural to psychopath narcissists. Men such as Hitler and Muhammad are absolutely bereft of conscience. They are pathological liars. Amazingly they are the first to believe in their own lies while at the same time they get confirmation when others are fooled and believe in them.

There is a proverbial character in Persian folklore called Mulla Nasreddin. It is said that one day Mulla Nasredddin took his old moribund donkey to the market for sale. He extolled the qualities of his donkey so much that at once he said, why am I selling such a good donkey and rode the animal back home.

Mulla Nasreddin is a funny character but not a psychopath. The minds of the psychopaths, however, does not work the way normal minds work. Their logic is distorted and their reality is twisted. Their value system is completely different from the rest of the people. Have you ever wondered why someone would break a window of your car that cost you hundreds of dollars to replace just to steal a few coins? You wonder about this person’s total lack of conscience. How can he cause you so much damage for such an insignificant reward? It makes no sense. But the truth is that your values are distinct from his. He has no conscience. May be his brain is damaged by drugs. He does not think about you at all. You and your losses simply do not enter into his equation. The development of conscience in these people has stopped at a very primitive stages. In one of my trips to South America I read in a local Newspaper that someone had killed someone else just to steal his Nike shoes.

Would you expect a bear; for example, have any consideration of your car if he spots a bag of chips inside it? He will break your windshield and ruin your care or even kill you to get his hand on the bag of chips. The ethical intelligence of some humans does not develop to full extent. They can be geniuses but morally and ethically they are animals.

Muhammad, Hitler, Stalin and all other very successful pathological narcissists had no conscience. Lives of other people are worth nothing to the pathological narcissist. To him, people matter, as long as they serve his goal but can be disposed of when they stand in his way or simply are of no use to him.

These days a man is on trial in USA, charged with murdering his pregnant wife. All clues point to him except one thing. There seem to be no motive. Why a man would murder his nine month pregnant wife if there is no insurance to recover and when divorcing her is the logical option?

This is the way you and I, as normal people think. The logic of a pathological narcissist does not work quite the same way. He may think that going through the hassle of divorce, paying alimony and child support for many years is not something fun. So the easy way is to get rid of his wife and his unborn child with a "perfect crime" and forget about it. There is no conscience, there is no remorse there is no feeling. Many jurors may acquit this man because they may find no motive. But that is because they judge him based on their own moral values.

Just as we do not look alike, we do not think alike. Just as some humans are impaired in one way or another, some totally lack conscience.

Muhammad was one such person. He had no conscience. He could make up all sorts of lies and kill as many people as he desired with no guilt at all. This audacity of him confounded his companions as it does a billion of his followers today. “How can one be so sure of himself?” Muslims wonder. “How he could fool so many close friends and relatives including his wife all this time?” they argue.

The answer is that we should not use the same parameters we use for normal people when studying Muhammad. Muhammad was a psychopath and he should be assessed as such. We have to compare him with other psychopath cult leaders who also impressed those around them and managed to fool very intelligent and balanced people.

To understand the phenomenon of Muhammad we have to study modern cults and peer into the minds of their leaders. Cases abound. I only give a few examples:

How do you explain this much loyalty and faith?

The two known leaders of the group were Luc Jouret, a Belgian homeopathic doctor, and Joseph di Mambro, a wealthy businessman. They were like Muhammad and Abu Bakr of this cult. They too believed in their insanity and they too committed suicide.

The cult gave great importance to the sun. Their fiery ritual murder-suicides are meant to take members of the sect to a new world on the star "Sirius." To assist with the trip, several of the victims, including some children, were shot in the head, asphyxiated with black plastic bags and/or poisoned.

Luc and Joseph wrote, in a letter delivered after their deaths that they were "leaving this earth to find a new dimension of truth and absolution, far from the hypocrisies of this world." Doesn’t this sound eerily familiar to what Muhammad preached?

How can you explain the devotion of these people to their sick beliefs? Do you deny the conviction of their leaders to their cause?

The Heaven Gaters died in three shifts over a three-day period after celebrating their last meal on earth. 15 cultists died the first day, 15 the second and the remaining nine the third day. As one set of cultist ingested the poison, a lethal dose of phenobarbital mixed in with pudding and/or applesauce and chased with a shot of vodka, they would lie down and another cultist would use a plastic bag to speed up the dying. A frighteningly anal-retentive mass suicide, the cultist would clean up after each round of killing. Before the last two killed themselves, they took out the trash leaving the rented mansion in perfect order. Wanting to be helpful even after dead, all bodies had some sort of identification. Strangely, though, they also had five-dollar bill and change in their pockets and small suitcases neatly tucked under the cots and beds.

Also take a look at the story of John de Ruilter, the man whose followers believe to be greater than Jesus, allow him to have orgies with their daughters. One of his followers is a psychologist who swears in his thirty years of practice has never come across such a “sane” man.

We have thousands of cases such as these. The cult leaders are charismatic, they are persuasive and they are convinced of their own cause. They are not normal people, they are psychopaths. They are very different from ordinary people and that is why they stand out. They are often intelligent people, but their reality and fantasy are mixed up. They mystify others with their oomph, self assurance, single mindedness and unwavering resolution. That is because they can’t distinguish between what is real and what is imagined. They are the first to believe in their own lies. This conviction fools their close friends and relatives, making them believe that they must know something that others don't and they may have access to a divine source of knowledge.

Muhammad was no different. He was a psychopath. I have described his psychological profile in another article, titled The Force Behind Muhammad. Hitler, Stalin, or other charismatic cult leaders were not stupid. They were highly intelligent but they were insane.

More insane than that is the fact that a billion people follow a psychopath and all of them base their belief on a few logical fallacies. Each one of them bases his faith on the credulity of others and all of them like sheep follow each other. If all the sheep go one way then that must be the right way to go.

Someone must stop this insanity. I am asking you to read the Quran; read the hadiths and the history of Muhammad and use your own brain. When you do that it becomes clear that Muhammad was not a messenger of God but a criminal psychopath. This insanity has become chronic and has lasted for too long. It must be stopped. This madness is getting out of hand and is threatening mankind. Enough with craziness and stupidity! It is time that we wake up and see the truth with our own eyes and not with the eyes of a bunch of idiots such as Abu Bakr, Omar, Khadijah or Ali, that sadist criminal who was more comfortable killing than thinking. These people were deluded cultists. Discern the truth with your own eyes not with the eyes of others. Judge the facts with your own brain, not with the brains of others. Don’t be a sheep following other sheep.

One question arises in the mind of the Muslims: Why all Muhammad's companions praised him so much? Why no one spoke opprobriously of him even after his death?

The answer is that In a society that is based on personality cult, speaking your mind is not easy. Telling the truth could bring you ostracism and even cost your life. People who think differently keep their thoughts to themselves. Instead the sycophants and ruffians try to endear themselves by eulogizing the leader through flattery and exaggerated adulation. After his death the sycophants add to their charade to gain prestige. Even today the situation is not changed. People who dissent are afraid to talk and persecuted; while the toadies are honored for writing eulogies about Muhammad. How can truth come out in this repressive and deceitful atmosphere?

We have many stories about Muhammad ordering the assassination of those who criticized him and about Omar who was ever ready to withdraw his sword and slit the throat of one who questioned Muhammad’s authority. Muhammad encouraged sycophantism and punished criticism.

Therefore the secrets of Muhammad’s success are no secret at all. He succeeded because he told the biggest lie ever and because he was extremely ruthless towards those who questioned him and disagreed with him.

Muhammad succeeded also because he appeared among the most ignorant, the most superstitious and the most savage people. The qualities that he needed to bolster his marauding religion was all present among his early followers and later were imposed on others who fell prey to his cult. Chauvinism, bigotry, haughtiness, arrogance, megalomania, stupidity, greed, lust for sex, disrespect for life and other “noble” qualities such as these, that are the hallmark of Islam were already present as the materia prima in the Arabia where Muhammad launched his prophetic carrier. All he had to do was to invent a big lie and add some intolerance and some violence to create the most perfect religion of hate.

Muslims call themselves Ummah. This word is of the same root of Ummi. Ummi is how Muhammad referred to himself and it means unlettered, unschooled, uneducated.

Therefore Ummah means the community of the unlettered followers. In the case of Muhammad this implied that his knowledge was of a divine source. However that distinction does not apply to the Ummah.

The Ummah is unable to find its way and it needs the guidance of the Imam, also from the same root, meaning one who leads the Ummah. This is basically the concept of sheep and shepherd. The entire community of Muslims is deemed to be sheep in need of shepherd.

The believer is supposed to do whatever other believers do and all of them are to blindly follow what the Imam tells them to do, and he in turn is supposed to instruct them with what Muhammad used to do.

This attitude exonerates Muslims from thinking. By following a uniform behavioral and thinking pattern the individual finds safety and comfort in the group.

Conformity is encouraged and independent thought is severely punished. Disagreeing with the majority can bring immense pain and hardship to the independent thinker.

Muslims are kept in line by pleasure/pain stimuli. By conforming they get rewarded. Their sycophantism is prized and it helps them to be accepted and cling to their social status. On the other hand independence of thought has sever consequences.

On psychological level the believer is terrorized with the fear of hell and lured by the promise of paradise. This psychological pressure is intended to numb the rational faculty of the believer and discourage him from ever wandering his mind on things that may shake his faith in the big lie.

This is another important factor that has helped Islam to survive for so many centuries. Muslims are discouraged and do not dare to think independently. Breaking that pattern and rebelling against the conformity is so painful that the thought of that sends shiver down the spine of the believer. By thinking differently the believer could lose his wife, his family, his friends, his job, his status, his respect, his property, his freedom and even his life.

The fear of the society and the fear of the afterlife are two main reasons Islam has endured so long. This lie has never been probed and as long as it remains unperturbed, it will stay unscathed. The longevity of a lie does not prove it otherwise. Islam has survived because of the fear factor and not because it is true.

Socially, Islam contributes to the deindividuation of the believer. Deindividuation is a technical term for sheep mentality. This is a psychological state where sheep mentality is aroused when individuals join crowds or large groups.

The deindividuation is characterized by diminished awareness of self and individuality. In Islam individuality is completely denied and the individual lives is fused with Ummah. He is not only reduced to a virtual slave, he is actually called by that name. People, are called Ibaad which literally means slaves.

Deindividuation reduces an individual's self-restraint and normative regulation of behavior. It contributes to collective behavior of violent crowds, mindless hooligans, and the lynch mob. Such behavior is particularly noticeable when the Ummah gets into the mosque and is roused by red faced speeches of the imams and mullahs calling upon them to curse the Jews and the infidels for “oppressing” the Muslims.

The individual is not allowed to question why. What is the proof of that oppression and why he should hate the Jews and the infidels? If a child ask that question he will be slapped on the face so he can learn this is an inappropriate question, but if an adult asks that question he could be in big trouble.

Deindividuation has been also associated with other social phenomena such as genocide, stereotyping, and disinhibition. This explains the behavioral pattern of the believing/practicing Muslims. The mob lynching of the American contractors in Fallujah and the evisceration of the Israeli soldiers and gnawing on their hearts in Ramala are just two cases that were brought to public light because the victims were Americans and Israelis. But this behavior is not uncommon in Islam. In Iran thousands of Baha’is lost their lives to mob lynching. In Pakistan the same happens to those accused of insulting Muhammad. Muslims are often roused to uncontrollable hysteric levels, after listening to the sermons in their mosques and become ready to commit murder.

Ironically it is the brutality and the repressive nature of Islam, in conjunction with its absolute irrationality that has made this doctrine a successful religion and survive this long.

Islam cannot stand scrutiny. Muhammad knew perfectly that he is unable to answer the questions raised by his critics. Therefore he saw to it so no one dared ever question him.

Even in the West if someone pronounces something critical of Islam, Muslims protest en masse and murder the westerners in Dar al Islam, claming that their sensibility has been hurt. The idea is that you dare not criticize their religion next time, because if you do, they can't answer you and that means the end of Islam.

This is why Islam has survived so far and not because it is a true religion.

Capital punishment by death has been eliminated in most of the civilized world. But even those countries that still practice it kill the convicts by lethal injection or another painless and humane way. They never torture them or maim them. Yet Muhammad prescribed the worst tortures for those who do not accept his hodgepodge of religion.